Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement
Value Management Workshop Report
November 2014
Prepared by:-
The Australian Centre for Value Management
55 Albion Street
Surry Hills NSW 2010 Australia
Tel (61 2) 9211 6488
Fax (61 2) 9211 6499
Contents
1. Workshop overview ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Workshop objectives ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Workshop activities .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Workshop outcomes2
1.5 Recommended a preferred direction ....................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Possible improvements or enhancements .............................................................................................. 3
2. Tooleybuc Bridge Project ...................................................................................................... 4
2.1 The process so far ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Project drivers .......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Project objectives .................................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Project givens .......................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Option assessment criteria ................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Developing the assessment criteria ........................................................................................................ 6
3.2 Assessment criteria weighting ................................................................................................................. 7
3.3 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 9
4. Assessment of the options .................................................................................................. 10
4.1 Advantages and disadvantages of the options ..................................................................................... 10
4.2 Option evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 12
4.3 Evaluation of crossing options against functional assessment criteria ................................................. 12
4.4 Evaluation of options against socio economic assessment criteria ...................................................... 13
4.5 Evaluation of options against environmental assessment criteria......................................................... 13
4.6 Summary of crossing option evaluation ................................................................................................ 13
4.7 Recommending a preferred direction .................................................................................................... 14
4.8 Possible improvements or enhancements ............................................................................................ 15
Appendix 1. Workshop participants ......................................................................................... 16
Appendix 2. Workshop agenda ................................................................................................. 17
Appendix 3. Tooleybuc bridge replacement strategic options ............................................... 18
1
1. Workshop overview
1.1 Background
The existing bridge was opened in 1925 and is one of 45 timber Allan truss lift span bridges across NSW. As a timber bridge, it requires frequent maintenance with timber materials and maintenance expertise becoming harder to find.
Across the state, truss bridges account for around 80 per cent of the timber bridge maintenance budget.
The NSW Government has developed a timber bridge replacement strategy. This strategy recommended retaining 25 timber truss bridges for heritage preservation. Tooleybuc was one that was proposed to be removed given an Allan truss is a relatively common type of timber bridge, with nearby Swan Hill bridge representing a better example.
The existing Tooleybuc bridge is not capable of supporting higher mass limit loads from freight vehicles, and so has been included in the NSW Government's "Bridges for the Bush" program of works.
Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and Maritime), in partnership with VicRoads, is planning for a new bridge over the Murray River at Tooleybuc (NSW). This new bridge would replace the existing crossing. The project is led by Roads and Maritime.
Project development has resulted in three different bridge options being short listed for evaluation. The three options are identified as follows:
Yellow Option is a high level bridge located downstream of the existing crossing;
Blue Option is a low level lift-span next to and upstream of the old bridge;
Purple Option is a low level lift span which would connect to Murray Street near Grant Street.
A plan showing the options’ location is included in Section 1 of this report.
This Value Management (VM) Workshop brought stakeholders together to consider planning investigation outcomes. It also enabled a discussion of options in order to gain a shared understanding of which option might best meet the needs of the local community and road users.
VM workshops are a NSW process. The outcomes from this VM will be one of several inputs from both Victoria and NSW into selecting a preferred option.
The Australian Centre for Value Management (ACVM) was commissioned to facilitate and report on the VM/ workshop which was held on Thursday 13 November 2014. A list of participants who attended the workshop can be found in Appendix 1.
This document reports on the process followed and outcomes reached in the workshop.
1.2 Workshop objectives
The objectives of the workshop were:
To obtain a common understanding of the project and its objectives
To review the work undertaken to date
To recommend a preferred option or options, if appropriate, to progress the project to the next stage of development.
2 Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement Value Management Workshop
1.3 Workshop activities
The workshop agenda is included in Appendix 2.
The workshop started with an overview presentation on the project and a summary of the “journey so far”. A brief overview of options was also provided.
Following the presentations, the workshop participants talked about the project drivers and project objectives, and identified a suite of project related givens (Section 1).
The group then developed and weighted assessment criteria under three key categories (Functional, Socio Economic and Environmental) based on what participants considered important for later option evaluation. Relative assessment criteria weighting was completed by the whole group based on a paired comparison assessment process (Section 2).
Prior to assessing the options, participants identified what they believed were the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Participants then evaluated the performance of each option against the weighted criteria. The process involved comparing the relative performance of each option against the respective criterion on a 4 (best performing option against the criteria) to 1 (poor relative performance when compared to the better performing option) rating. Assessment was then converted to a numerical score and compared to a strategic capital cost assessment (Section 3).
1.4 Workshop outcomes
By the end of the workshop, participants had:
Noted and acknowledged the project objectives which are:
Provide an improved road alignment and width on the Murray River crossing at Tooleybuc
Provide reliable access over the Murray River to accommodate Higher Mass Limit vehicles and over dimension loads
Provide reliable connection over the Murray River and minimise interruptions at the river crossing
Provide a replacement bridge to current standards that minimises ongoing maintenance costs
Demolish the existing Tooleybuc bridge structure (subject to Heritage approval)
Minimise environmental impacts and maximise the quality of urban and landscape outcomes.
Identified and weighted qualitative criteria to be used to differentiate and evaluate options as:
Functional Criteria
Enhance road safety
Improve traffic efficiency for both freight and passenger vehicles
Enhance cycle/pedestrian links and movements
Enhance access to Tooleybuc facilities
Maintain river craft passage.
Socio Economic Criteria
Enhance social connectivity between NSW and Victoria at Tooleybuc
Minimise the impact on local and regional business operation and provide for growth
3
Minimise noise and amenity impacts of traffic in residential areas
Maintain the town’s relationship with the river e.g. views and river usage
Minimise impacts on landowners.
Environmental Criteria
Minimise impacts on land based flora
Minimise impacts on land based fauna
Minimise impacts on aquatic flora and fauna
Minimise impacts on Aboriginal heritage
Minimise impacts on non-Aboriginal heritage
Minimise impacts on flooding (subject to detailed design).
1.5 Recommended a preferred direction
Participants seated in sub groups were asked to reflect on the analysis and the points made in discussion and make recommendations as to which option should be considered and assessed in detail.
All four sub groups independently and unanimously recommended that the yellow option go forward for further consideration because:
The functional and socio economic benefits are considerably better than for the blue or purple options
The yellow option best reduces the potential for conflict between through and local traffic in Murray Street
The yellow option eliminates the ninety degree turning requirement for vehicles travelling to / from Balranald providing an improvement in freight efficiency
Greater opportunity to improve the safety and efficiency of the Lea Street/Lockhart Road/Murray Street intersection
Potential to achieve real improvements in town amenity.
The recommendation is subject to:
Satisfactory outcomes from the hydrology, Aboriginal heritage studies and environmental assessments
Resolution of intersection treatments with Lea Street/Murray St/Lockhart Road
Amenity and access for private properties in Victoria being considered and resolved
Affected landowners being well advised and justly treated
Community support for the revitalisation of Murray Street.
1.6 Possible improvements or enhancements
Possible areas for additional consideration and focus identified toward the end of the workshop were:
Consideration given to the aesthetics of the bridge embankments
Consideration for affected property owners in Victoria to retain continued access to the river
Consideration to cyclist requirements.
4 Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement Value Management Workshop
2. Tooleybuc Bridge Project
2.1 The process so far
In April 2013 three broad corridors were displayed to the community. The community advised that they did not favour a lift span but also didn’t want to bypass town.
In November 2013 four preliminary options were displayed to the community. All options were based on high level bridge design to reflect community feedback. Some high level options were ruled out due to impacts to Murray Street and Tooleybuc, resulting in the lift span options being re-introduced.
In May 2014 three strategic options were identified as being brought forward to the detailed study stage. These were:
Yellow Option
High level bridge
Allows direct connection to Murray Street via intersection
Larger structure with larger footprint.
Blue Option
Low level lift-span
Next to old bridge (upstream).
Purple Option
Low level lift-span
Connects to Murray Street near Grant Street.
A schematic of the strategic route options is included in Appendix 3.
Specialist studies
A series of environmental specialist studies are completed or underway. Studies carried out for the project include:
Urban Design / Landscape
The Urban Design Study report provides an overview of the visual impact each new bridge option would have on the town. This includes assessing the impacts on the town’s landscape character.
Socio-economic assessment
This report assesses the impacts each option would have on the social environment in town. This report also assesses the economic impacts each option would have on the local and broader community.
Noise and vibration assessment
This report predicts noise generated from the new bridge traffic, and also considers construction noise impacts. A comparison of predicted noise levels against existing noise levels has been completed.
Hydrology
Currently underway, this report will investigate how each of the options impacts the existing flood behaviour in town. The results of this report influence the design of the bridge as well as any flood mitigation measures needed.
Biodiversity
5
Currently underway, this report will outline the impacts each option would have on flora and fauna in the local area. This includes aquatic species and assesses connections across the new road alignment.
2.2 Project drivers
The project “drivers” for the replacement of the bridge were identified as being:
The Increased demand for heavy vehicles
Ongoing maintenance issues with the existing bridge
Need to enhance road safety within Tooleybuc
Need to maintain Tooleybuc’s viability.
2.3 Project objectives
The project objectives, as identified for Tooleybuc Bridge Project, were presented for information and discussion. The objectives were:
Provide an improved road alignment and width on the Murray River Crossing at Tooleybuc
Provide reliable access over the Murray River to accommodate Higher Mass Limit vehicles and over dimension loads
Provide reliable connection over the Murray River and minimise interruptions at the river crossing
Provide a replacement bridge to current standards that minimises ongoing maintenance costs
Demolish the existing Tooleybuc bridge structure (subject to Heritage approval)
Minimise environmental impacts and maximise the quality of urban and landscape outcomes.
2.4 Project givens
Aspects of the project that are deemed effectively fixed or determined were listed and discussed. The identified givens for the purpose of the assessment were:
The new bridge will be a two lane bridge
A separated pedestrian/cycle access will be provided on the new bridge
Direct access will be provided to Murray Street
Most or all of the existing bridge will be demolished
Roads and Maritime will negotiate with Wakool Shire Council in relation to possible retention of the Tooleybuc approach span or NSW bridge pier for recreational activities
The new bridge will cater for future freight growth
Mensforth Park and facilities will not be directly impacted by the new bridge
Appropriate signage will be provided
Irrespective of which option is selected, there will be some impact on the Victorian landholders
There will be an increase in the number and size of heavy vehicles using this route
There will be a change in traffic volumes and mix in Murray street
Access to Victorian properties will be maintained.
6 Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement Value Management Workshop
3. Option assessment criteria
3.1 Developing the assessment criteria
The workshop group agreed to employ a silo or category approach for criteria selection and option assessment. The agreed areas or silos comprised Functional; Socio-economic; and Environmental criteria.
Prior to the workshop, draft criteria were identified and listed for discussion under the identified categories. Prior to accepting the criterion, the participants need to satisfy themselves that:
The criterion is discrete i.e. the intent has not been double counted;
The criterion will enable us to differentiate between options.
Capital cost estimates were separated from the criteria assessment, but introduced as separate information to guide any decision making.
The criteria identified and agreed to be the group under the respective categories is reproduced below:
Functional criteria
# Criteria Is the criterion
discrete?
Will the criterion enable
differentiation?
A Enhance road safety Yes Yes
B Improve traffic efficiency for both freight and passenger vehicles
Yes Yes
C Enhance cycle/pedestrian links Yes Yes
D Enhancing access to Tooleybuc facilities Yes Yes
E Maintain river craft passage Yes Yes
Socio economic criteria
# Criteria Is the criterion
discrete?
Will the criterion enable
differentiation?
A Enhance social connectivity between NSW and Victoria at Tooleybuc
Yes Yes
B Minimise the impact on local and regional business operation and provide for growth.
Yes Yes
C Minimise noise and amenity impacts of traffic in residential areas
Yes Yes
D Maintain the town’s relationship with the river e.g. views and river usage.
Yes Yes
E Minimise impacts on landowners Yes Yes
7
Environmental criteria
# Criteria Is the criterion
discrete?
Will the criterion enable
differentiation?
A Minimise impacts on land based flora and fauna
Yes Yes
B Minimise impacts on aquatic flora and fauna Yes Yes
C Minimise impacts on Aboriginal heritage Yes Yes
D Minimise impacts on non-Aboriginal heritage Yes Yes
E Minimise impacts on flooding (subject to detailed design)
Yes Yes
3.2 Assessment criteria weighting
Relative weighting of assessment criteria was completed by the whole group using a paired comparison approach. This process involved assessing the relative importance of the respective criteria by comparing each criterion to every other criterion to determine which is collectively viewed as being the most important. A weighting was then assigned to the preference ie a weighting of 3 assigned for a major preference, a weighting of 2 for a medium preference and a weighting of 1 for a minor preference. If the group was unable to differentiate between the two criterions under consideration they are given equal weight.
The group’s workings and their weightings of the assessment criteria for each category are below:
Functional criteria
No. Criteria Raw Score Relative Weight
A Enhance road safety 4 40%
B Improve traffic efficiency for both freight and passenger vehicles
2.5 25%
C Enhance cycle/pedestrian links 1 10%
D Enhancing access to Tooleybuc facilities 2.5 25%
E Maintain river craft passage 0 0%
Total 10
Scoring matrix
The workings for the relative assessment are shown below.
B C D E
A A A A A
B B B/D B
C D C
D D
8 Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement Value Management Workshop
Socio economic criteria
No. Criteria Raw Score Relative Weight
A. Enhance social connectivity between NSW and Victoria at Tooleybuc
0 0%
B Minimise the impact on local and regional business operation and provide for growth.
3 30%
C. Minimise noise and amenity impacts of traffic in residential areas
2.5 25%
D. Maintain the town’s relationship with the river e.g. views and river usage.
3.5 35%
E. Minimise impacts on landowners 1 10%
Total 10
Scoring matrix
The workings for the relative assessment are shown below.
B C D E
A B C D E
B B/C B/D B
C D C
D D
Comments
The participants agreed that the criterion weighting was a fair assessment of relative importance.
Environmental criteria
No. Criteria Raw Score Relative Weight
A Minimise impacts on land based flora and fauna 1.5 15%
B Minimise impacts on aquatic flora and fauna 1.5 15%
C Minimise impacts on Aboriginal heritage 1.5 15%
D Minimise impacts on non-Aboriginal heritage 1.5 15%
E Minimise impacts on flooding (subject to detailed design)
4 40%
Total 10 100
Comments
The participants agreed that the criterion weighting was a fair assessment of relative importance.
Scoring Matrix
The workings for the relative assessment are shown below.
9
B C D E
A A/B A/C A/D E
B B/C B/D E
C C/D E
D E
Comments
The participants agreed that the criterion weighting was a fair assessment of relative importance.
3.3 Summary
A summary of the weightings of the assessment criteria within the three categories as determined by the group for option assessment appears below.
Assessment criteria
Functional Socio economic Environmental
Criteria Wt Criteria Wt Criteria Wt
Enhance road safety 40%
Enhance social connectivity between NSW and Victoria at Tooleybuc
0% Minimise impacts on land based flora and fauna
15%
Improve traffic efficiency for both freight and passenger vehicles
25%
Minimise the impact on local and regional business operation and provide for growth.
30% Minimise impacts on aquatic flora and fauna
15%
Enhance cycle/pedestrian links
10% Minimise noise and amenity impacts of traffic in residential areas
25% Minimise impacts on Aboriginal heritage
15%
Enhancing access to Tooleybuc facilities
25%
Maintain the town’s relationship with the river e.g. views and river usage.
35% Minimise impacts on non-Aboriginal heritage
15%
Maintain river craft passage
0% Minimise impacts on landowners
10% Minimise impacts on flooding (subject to detailed design)
40%
10 Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement Value Management Workshop
4. Assessment of the options
4.1 Advantages and disadvantages of the options
Prior to evaluating the relative performance of the options, the participants identified the advantages and disadvantages of the options. The aspects as identified were:
Yellow River Crossing
Advantages
Removes large and heavy vehicles from Murray Street
Separates through and local traffic within town
Improves the amenity in Tooleybuc
Incorporates a straighter alignment which would reduce noise impacts and avoid the need for a turning movement for through traffic
Provides free road movements and river movements by not having a lift span
Requires less maintenance due to not having a lift span, resulting in lower maintenance costs and fewer disruptions
Upgrades the Murray Street/Lea Street/Lockhart Road intersection by providing protected right turn into Murray Street and improved pedestrian safety
Potentially provides a vista for drivers and pedestrians into town and along the river
Provides potential to improve river bank stability in the vicinity of the abutment.
Disadvantages
Loss of views (due to the bridge abutments) from surrounding properties and from town
Greater flora and fauna impacts
Impact on the existing boat ramp which might prove to be an advantage if it needs to be relocated
Possible noise impacts for some properties due to proximity of new road
Less passing traffic which might impact on local businesses
Greater property acquisition than for the other options
A larger number of properties effected
Possible reduction in accommodation options.
Blue River Crossing
Advantages
Less impacts on flora and fauna
Makes most use of existing road in Victoria
Minimises private property impacts
Provides passing traffic for local traders
Maintains river views.
11
Disadvantages
Increased noise from increased traffic volume and the likely mix of traffic
Incorporates existing two 90 degree turns and two sharp bends which contribute to noise and reduces efficiency
Increased traffic through town adversely impacts on pedestrian and other road user safety within the town centre
Does not separate through and local traffic within town
Limits opportunity for reusing any portions of the old bridge
Truck parking within town limits opportunity for other light vehicle parking
Disruption to traffic due to the operation of the lift span
Possible impacts on emergency services during lift span operation
Ongoing maintenance and installation costs for the lift span component
Loss of possible amenity for Lacey Park.
Purple River Crossing
Advantages
Moderate impacts on flora and fauna
Minimal private property and acquisition impacts
Provides or maintains passing traffic for local traders
Maintains river views.
Disadvantages
Increased noise from increased traffic volume and the likely mix of traffic
Incorporates two 90 degree turns and a sharp bend which contribute to noise and reduces efficiency
Increased traffic through town adversely impacts on pedestrian safety within the town centre
Does not separate through and local traffic within town
Truck parking within town limits opportunity for other light vehicle parking
Disruption to traffic due to the operation of the lift span
Possible impacts on emergency services during lift span operation
Ongoing maintenance and installation costs for the lift span component
Heavy traffic passes closer to motel and nearby residents around Grant street
Alignment allows for greater travel speed approaching Murray street and is considered to be a safety issue
Loss of possible amenity for Lacey Park.
12 Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement Value Management Workshop
4.2 Option evaluation
A presentation was provided on the main options under consideration.
It was emphasised that these options were at a pre-concept stage and were still in need of detailed design improvements.
The group felt that it was now in a position to evaluate the options against the weighted assessment criteria developed in the workshop. The group worked as a whole and in turn evaluated the options using the weighted assessment criteria in each of the three categories.
The options were judged on a qualitative basis of how well each option met each category’s assessment criteria relatively on a scale of 4 to 1. The option which best addressed or met the specific criteria was allocated the score of 4. Then the group assessed the relative performance of the other option under that criterion. The score 3 meant the performance was a little bit worse, 2 was a bit worse still and 1 was a fair bit worse.
Once the qualitative evaluation was completed, the evaluation was scored using the weightings of the criteria and establishing a ranking for each option within that category.
The group’s assessment for the crossing options follows.
4.3 Evaluation of crossing options against functional assessment criteria
Options Wt
Yellow Blue Purple
Rate ∑ Rate ∑ Rate ∑
Enhance road safety 40% 4 160 2 80 2 80
Improve traffic efficiency for both freight and passenger vehicles
25% 4 100 2 50 2 50
Enhance cycle/pedestrian links 10% 4 40 3 30 3 30
Enhancing access to Tooleybuc facilities
25% 3 75 4 100 4 100
Maintain river craft passage 0% 4 0 3 0 3 0
Total Weighted Score 375 260 260
13
4.4 Evaluation of options against socio economic assessment criteria
Options Wt
Yellow Blue Purple
Rate ∑ Rate ∑ Rate ∑
Enhance social connectivity between NSW and Victoria at Tooleybuc
0% 4 0 4 0 4 0
Minimise the impact on local and regional business operation and provide for growth.
30% 4 120 3 90 3 90
Minimise noise and amenity impacts of traffic in residential areas
25% 4 100 1 25 1 25
Maintain the town’s relationship with the river e.g. views and river usage.
35% 4 140 2 70 2 70
Minimise impacts on landowners 10% 1 10 4 40 3 30
Total Weighted Score 370 225 215
4.5 Evaluation of options against environmental assessment criteria
Options Wt
Yellow Blue Purple
Rate ∑ Rate ∑ Rate ∑
Minimise impacts on land based flora and fauna
15% 1 15 4 60 3 45
Minimise impacts on aquatic flora and fauna
15% 4 60 3 45 3 45
Minimise impacts on Aboriginal heritage
15% 1 15 4 60 3 45
Minimise impacts on non-Aboriginal heritage
15% 4 60 4 60 4 60
Minimise impacts on flooding (subject to detailed design)
40% 3 120 4 160 4 160
Total Weighted Score 270 385 355
4.6 Summary of crossing option evaluation
A summary of the options rankings against the various assessment categories together with the ranking of the capital cost estimates appears below.
In regard to the Capital cost it was noted that the difference in costs was not material and by itself would not determine preference.
14 Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement Value Management Workshop
Rank Functional Socio Economic Environmental Capital Cost
Rank
1 Yellow
(375)
Yellow
(370)
Blue (385) and Purple (355)
All considered equal 2
Blue and Purple
(260)
Blue (225) and Purple (215)
3 Yellow
(270)
4.7 Recommending a preferred direction
As a final review, four sub groups were requested to reflect on the analysis and if possible offer a recommendation as to which option should be progressed for further development.
The four sub groups’ recommendations are outlined below.
Sub Group 1
Recommend that the yellow option go forward for further consideration because:
The functional and socio economic benefits are considerably better than for the blue and purple options.
Subject to:
Satisfactory outcomes from the hydrology and Aboriginal heritage studies
Resolution of property access issues along the alignment within Victoria
Community support for the revitalisation of Murray Street.
Sub Group 2
Recommend that the yellow option go forward for further consideration because:
Reduced potential for conflict between through and local traffic in Murray Street
Elimination of the ninety degree turning requirement for vehicles travelling to / from Balranald, thereby providing an improvement in freight efficiency
Potential for revitalisation along Murray Street.
Subject to:
Finalisation of the hydrology study and satisfactory outcomes
Resolution of intersection treatments with Balranald Road
Amenity and access for private properties on the Victorian side being considered and resolved.
Sub Group 3
Recommend that the yellow option go forward for further consideration because:
General safety considerations are better addressed by the yellow option
Greater opportunity to improve intersection treatment
Potential for improvements in the town dynamics.
15
Subject to:
Finalisation of the hydrology study
Finalisation of environmental investigations.
Sub Group 4
Recommend that the yellow option go forward for further consideration because:
It is considered a better overall option for the town
It will achieve an improvement in town amenity.
Subject to:
All necessary environmental requirements being addressed, including those for the removal of trees
Affected landowners being well advised and justly treated.
4.8 Possible improvements or enhancements
Possible areas for additional consideration and focus identified near the end of the workshop were:
Consideration given to the aesthetics of the bridge embankments
Consideration for affected property owners in Victoria to retain continued access to the river
Consideration to cyclist requirements.
16 Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement Value Management Workshop
Appendix 1. Workshop participants
Tim Wilson, Roads and Maritime Project Development Manager
Brendan Maher, Roads and Maritime Senior Project Manager, Delivery
Steve Warrell, Roads and Maritime Senior Project Development Manager
Graham Fry, VicRoads Senior Strategic Planning Officer
Gary Kerr, Wakool Shire Council
Kristy Campbell, Roads and Maritime
Bruce Bates, Roads and Maritime Western Region
Bev Porteous, Landowner
Aaron Drenovski, Balranald Shire Council
Helen Porteous, Landowner
Deb and Ken Porteous, Landowners
Leon Caccaviello, Landowner
Ron Brehm, Tooleybuc Motel
Dean Howard, Roads and Maritime Senior Project Development Officer
James Gorrie, Roads and Maritime Lead Road Designer
Justin Hyde, Roads and Maritime Road Designer
Greg Sylvester, Tooleybuc Club Motor Inn
Chirs Molloy, Tooleybuc Sports Club
Glenys Connolly, Tooleybuc Post Office
Luke Bott, VicRoads
David Leahy, Swan Hill Rural City Council
Gary Norton, Swan Hill Rural City Council
Chris Laird, ACVM
17
Appendix 2. Workshop agenda
Time Agenda Item Responsibility
8.45 am Coffee
9.00 am Introduction
Welcome and Project Context
Description of the workshop process
Steve Warrell
Chris Laird
Information Phase
Project overview and the journey so far including an outline of the project purpose and objectives
Tim Wilson
Analysis Phase
Restate the project purpose and objectives
Givens/Constraints we are working within
Review and weigh the assessment criteria to evaluate the route options
All
12.30 pm Lunch
Review and Assessment of the Route Options
Review of the Route Options
Presentation of the route options (key features, advantages, issues, cost)
Other advantages and issues
Evaluate the route options using the reviewed assessment criteria and their weightings as well as the route option costs
Tim Wilson
All
The Way Forward
Recommend a preferred direction to progress the project
Summary of workshop outcomes and decisions
Where to from here?
All
Steve Warrell
4.30 pm Close
18 Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement Value Management Workshop
Appendix 3. Tooleybuc bridge replacement strategic options
rms.nsw.gov.au/ projects/south-western/tooleybuc-bridge/index.html
13 22 13
Customer feedback Roads and Maritime PO Box 484, Wagga Wagga NSW 2650
November 2014 RMS 15.332
ISBN: 978-1-925421-05-7